February 19, 1975
Page 3570
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am casting my vote for H.R. 1767, to prohibit the President of the United States from imposing a $3 per barrel tariff on imported oil.
I cast this vote to lift a burden of enormous magnitude from the people of Maine and 49 other States. It is a vote for a return to policymaking that recognizes human needs – that recognizes our national priorities.
The President would have Americans believe that their only salvation from Arab oil blackmail is to raise oil prices ourselves – to make oil cost so dearly that people will use less. His goal is to save 1 million barrel per day.
It is a desirable goal, but the method is unthinkable at a time when the endurance of people has already been sapped by recession, inflation, and doubled energy costs.
The President has proposed a tariff that would sap at least 30 billion consumer dollars from every part of our ailing economy. It is as if all the debate, all the careful study, all the hard experience of the past 18 months have been ignored.
I cannot accept that this oil tariff is the only path to energy conservation.
I cannot accept the idea we must impose a policy that will force higher prices on every American family – not just for fuel, but for electricity, for food, for clothing, for virtually every service and product.
In Maine, direct costs alone of the President's tariff would be over $150 million, and indirect costs would be several times more. For the average Maine family, it means that a winter heating bill that has nearly tripled to $700 in 2 years will cost $178 more.
Think of it – nearly $900 to heat an average home for one winter.
I cannot accept the joblessness that the President's tariff would cause.
I cannot accept that the Government can simply return the oil tariff revenues to consumers with rebates. There are simply too many people and too much room for error to avoid widespread inequities.
In short, I cannot accept the reasoning that imposes such indiscriminate suffering on people.
The President's tariff is a textbook solution – simply raise the price of something and consumption will go down. But this is no textbook problem. Our energy problem is much too complex and human.
That is why we need a comprehensive energy program consistent with our economic and human problems. We must have a program that does not throw people out of work and does not guarantee more double-digit inflation. We must have a program to reach a realistic savings of imported oil in an orderly manner.
There is such a program. There is a better way. The outlines of a congressional alternative are now taking shape.
This program proposes a gradual decrease in imports – roughly 2 percent per year – until by 1985 we import no more than 10 percent of our oil requirements.
We can do this without disrupting our economy further, without causing widespread suffering, and with the same results as the President proposes.
As I cast my vote, I think back to last month, when I held hearings in Maine on the impact of oil prices there.
One witness reminded me that we could impose a tax of $150 a barrel, and people would still need to heat their homes.
Another witness told me that the poor – who will be hit hardest – have already conserved. Conservation has been a necessity for them for years already. They are doing the best they can.
Another man tearfully related how he was forced out of business because of fuel cost increases, and for the first time in his life applied for food stamps.
In only one day of hearing, I heard scores of people relate their personal experiences of coping with high oil costs. I cannot ignore their suffering.
Yet, I had the overwhelming feeling that these people have been ignored in the President's energy program.
But they certainly can – and will – be included in our Nation's energy program.
I and others in Congress are working to insure that.